At the conclusion of yesterday’s study, we looked at the first suggestion for understanding the presence of sin in the Christian life. Today, we look at the other six ideas.
2. A second view is that what is sin in an unbeliever is not so regarded by God in the life of a believer. But this is simply not true. Sin is sin, wherever it is found. Moreover, it is probably the development of this precise double standard by the Gnostics that John is opposing.
3. Some have distinguished between the old nature and the new nature in a believer, arguing that the new nature cannot sin because it is from God. This is true in a sense and may even be supported by statements such as “that which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit,” drawn from John’s Gospel. But this is dangerous, for it can easily suggest that the individual is not responsible for the sins of the old nature or that he need not fight against them. One might argue that Paul makes such a distinction in Romans 7. But whether it is actually this distinction or not, it is surely a sufficient answer to note that John at least is not making any such distinction here. Indeed, he is calling for the individual Christian to turn from sin to righteousness; he is not calling upon the Christian to allow one nature rather than another to dominate him.
4. A more recent and quite widespread interpretation of these verses is that John is here speaking of an ideal. But if this is so, the question must then be asked, “Did he expect Christians to attain the ideal in this life?” If he did, we have not escaped the problem, we have only changed its contours. On the other hand, if he did not, then his entire moral test, the test of righteousness, becomes meaningless.
5. There is a qualified form of the idea of an ideal characteristic of the holiness movement. It is the view that John is indeed stating an ideal but that it is an attainable ideal to the extent that the Christian truly “abides” in Christ (v. 6). Here Stott’s reply is incisive. He notes that, while this is a possible interpretation of verse 6 (in which the Christian clearly has an obligation to abide in Christ), nevertheless it is obviously inadequate as an interpretation of verse 9 (in which all Christians, rather than just some, are included). The only way around this latter difficulty is to suggest that one can be born of God and be sinless, then, as a result of sin, cease to be born; in other words, to be born and unborn repeatedly. But this is contrary to John’s teaching and runs against his entire emphasis upon the Christian’s need to be sure of his salvation. The Christian could hardly be sure of his salvation if each sin he committed alienated him from God’s family.
6. The sixth view is that the sin which the Christian cannot do is willful or deliberate sin. But this is only a variation of the first interpretation and is disproved by the acknowledged conduct of all too many Christians. We do sin willfully and deliberately. Consequently, we should not be under any illusions regarding our need to confess our sin and seek cleansing.
7. The last and only adequate interpretation of these verses is that the sin which a Christian cannot commit is lasting or habitual. Here the interpreter is assisted by the tenses of the Greek verbs, all of which are present tense. If John had used an aorist tense as he does, for instance, in 2:1, he would have been referring to a specific sin committed at some particular point. This Christians do, as the earlier reference tells us. The cure for it is confession before Jesus Christ, our great high priest and advocate. In this passage, however, John uses the present tense three times to indicate, not a particular sin once committed, but rather a continuance in sin over an indefinite period. Each phrase indicates this. In verse 6, he says that “whosoever abideth in him sinneth not,” that is, “continues in sin indefinitely.” In verse 9, he says that “whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin,” that is “continues to commit sin.” In English this distinction seems somewhat superficial and even unjustified, but it is not so in the Greek language in which John wrote. In Greek John is simply saying that although a Christian may sin, and, in fact, often does sin, it is nevertheless impossible for him to go on persisting in sin indefinitely. Were this not so, righteousness could not be considered a true test of whether or not one is truly a child of God.
